From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: "Andrew Rybchenko" <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,
"Gaëtan Rivet" <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] net/failsafe: add default Tx mbuf fast free capability
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:31:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000e1ce9-819e-a75c-cc51-0f6ddcbbb5be@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <969cb7e3-6e1a-f5ac-ed1b-e4334f928b17@solarflare.com>
On 12/21/2018 12:52 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
>
> On 12/21/18 3:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 12/21/2018 12:28 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> On 12/21/18 3:12 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2018 12:36 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>> From: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>
>>>>>
>>>>> This capability is reported when supported by the current emitting
>>>>> sub-device. Failsafe PMD itself does not excercise fast free logic.
>>>> I think overlay device capability reporting already discussed a few times, the
>>>> question is if an overlay devices should claim a feature when it depends on
>>>> underlay devices?
>>> The capability may be reported by the failsafe since it is transparent from
>>> fast free logic point of view.
>> Why it is transparent? If one of the underlying device doesn't support/claim
>> this feature, application can't use this feature with failsafe, isn't it?
>
> tx_offload_capa in failsafe is a mask to apply on sub-device capabilities.
I missed this one, I see why it is transparent.
Why failsafe doesn't set a full tx_offload_capa MASK but maintain a list?
> So, if the capability is not supported by any sub-device it will not be
> reported.
> As well if there is the capability bit in the mask, it will not be
> reported regardless
> sub-devices capabilities. The description for the patch above tries to
> explain it -
> it looks like not that successful.
>
>>>> Given that no ack/review given to the patch, I am updating it as rejected.
>>> Is it a new policy? I thought that it was vice versa before.
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Yes policy is other-way around indeed, when there is no comment at all default
>> behavior is accept, but please take above paragraph as my comment to the patch.
>
> Got it.
>
>> And I was thinking it is a little controversial and there is no support to have
>> it, so lets don't get it. What do you think?
>
> I see you motivation.
>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini | 1 +
>>>>> drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c | 1 +
>>>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini b/doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini
>>>>> index e3c4c08f2..b6f3dcee6 100644
>>>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini
>>>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/failsafe.ini
>>>>> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>>>>> Link status = Y
>>>>> Link status event = Y
>>>>> Rx interrupt = Y
>>>>> +Fast mbuf free = Y
>>>>> Queue start/stop = Y
>>>>> Runtime Rx queue setup = Y
>>>>> Runtime Tx queue setup = Y
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c
>>>>> index 7f8bcd4c6..e3add404b 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c
>>>>> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ static struct rte_eth_dev_info default_infos = {
>>>>> DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY,
>>>>> .tx_offload_capa =
>>>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MULTI_SEGS |
>>>>> + DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_MBUF_FAST_FREE |
>>>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM |
>>>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM |
>>>>> DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_TCP_CKSUM |
>>>>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-21 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-12 11:36 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Andrew Rybchenko
2018-12-21 12:12 ` [dpdk-dev] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-12-21 12:28 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-12-21 12:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-12-21 12:52 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2018-12-21 13:16 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-12-21 13:59 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-12-21 14:44 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-12-21 18:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-12-21 13:31 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2018-12-21 15:09 ` Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=000e1ce9-819e-a75c-cc51-0f6ddcbbb5be@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gaetan.rivet@6wind.com \
--cc=ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).